Willard v. State

Citations

• 27 Tex. Ct. App. 386
• 11 S.W. 453
• 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 48

Syllabus

<p>1. Corpus Delicti—Evidence.—The criminal act and the defendant’s agency in producing the act are issues which the State must prove in order to warrant a conviction for crime. But such issues may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and the legal test of its sufficiency is whether it satisfies the understanding and conscience of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>2. Same—Confession.—A naked confession is not sufficient of itself to support a conviction. See the opinion on the subject.</p> <p>3. Same—Charge of the Court.—Upon the ground that, independent of the confession of the defendant, the State had adduced no proof of the corpus delicti, the defense requested the trial court to instruct the jury, in effect, that before they could consider the confession of the defendant as inculpatory evidence, the proof of the corpus delicti must be absolute and beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the. grounds upon which the court refused the requested instruction wa that the State, under the peculiar circumstances of this ease, was en titled to have the confession considered by the jury. Held, that the ruling, in view of the other proof in the case, and of the general charge as given by the court, was correct. See the opinion on the question.</p> <p>4. Cattle Theft—Pact Case.—See statement of the case on this and the former appeal (26 Texas Ct. App., 126), for evidence held sufficient to support a conviction for cattle theft. And see the statement of the case for the general charge of the court referred to in the preceding head note.</p>